Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

euxx

Classifieds
  • Posts

    1,854
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by euxx

  1. That is inline with my point. But isn't it amazing (or insane) that in the last 20 years rule book does NOT cover it?! More interesting what happens with Glen Higdon there...
  2. Not quite. Before PractiScore you've been adding hand written note on the paper scoresheets. There was a trail, even if it wasn't entered into EzSteelScore software. For comparison, check how these DNFs are handled for USPSA and IPSC matches.
  3. No record of what actually happened and it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do either. And that is only an interpretation, unless it is stated in the rule book... And they do that only because that is what they have in PractiScore app. And the PractiScore app does not provide them anything else, because there isn't anything in the rule book...
  4. Technically that does not exactly provide a complete record of what happens at the stage and quite painful to do when you have to do that on multiple strings and multiple stages. But the point is that the rule book does not say how to handle dnfs or incomplete strings. And also does not address noscore issue when there are incomplete stages...
  5. So, seems like the DNF doesn't seem to be an issue or it's just no one cares about them as they care about false starts?
  6. BTW, that article is somewhat backward. It is discussing how the PractiScore app handles DNF for SC. Though the app simply does nothing for DNFs because SC rules don't specify anything about it. I've heard several verbal versions what it should be... Logically the stage DNF should just give competitor 30 seconds for each incomplete string, including strings on the stages competitor hasn't been present at all. The end result will be that all competitors will have some overall match times (even ridiculously high ones) even if they haven't completed all stages. The ICORE does that. Though instead of +30 sec per string they have a DNF time that is set for a given stage based on number of targets, etc. Without that, in a time-based match we have to give competitors no time for the match and no overall standing. Arguably, maybe even all incomplete strings (even if they aren't marked as DNFs) should be implicit DNF/+30 seconds.
  7. This should cover everything https://community.practiscore.com/t/bluetooth-timers-supported-in-the-practiscore-app-for-android/208
  8. This is a good starting point. https://community.practiscore.com/t/getting-started-with-practiscore-scoring-apps/3332 Also there is a support crew to answer your questions. Don't hesitate to post them there.
  9. The PractiScore has had the Hit Factor scoring for over 10 years at least. It is so happen that people started to pay attention to it.
  10. Generally I'd say may want to direct that question to the timer manufacturers. However there is this: https://community.practiscore.com/t/looking-for-an-update-on-when-the-new-timers-on-the-market-will-be-approved-to-allow-direct-input-of-info-through-bluetooth/9764 https://community.practiscore.com/t/support-for-new-bluetooth-enabled-timers/7221
  11. But yes and no. Both IPSC PCC and IPSC Mini Rifle rule books are derived from the IPSC Rifle rule book. And there is PCC rule For comparison - same rules for IPSC PCC (note the bold part I highlighted): 1.2.1.6 The recommended balance for an IPSC Pistol Caliber Carbine match with regards to target distance is: 90% of all targets to be less than 50 meters and 10% to be between 50 and 100 meters. However, this does not apply if the same courses of fire are being used for an IPSC Pistol Caliber Carbine match held in conjunction with that of another discipline (e.g. handgun). 1.2.1.7 The maximum target distance for IPSC Mini Targets used in IPSC Pistol Caliber Carbine matches is 50 meters. 1.2.1.8 Where the physical dimensions of a range preclude the siting of targets at distances greater than 50 meters, it is recommended that the IPSC Micro Target be used (see Appendix B5). So, the PCC match can be co-located not only with a Handgun match but also with an IPSC Mini Rifle match. Then the recommended balance would not apply on the shared courses of fire. And there is this. The same range where the Extreme Euro Open is being run...
  12. @ZackJones do you expect to see different PSTs for LO comparing to the current Open and current/adjusted CO PSTs? After all, Open, CO and LO are all sub-minor divisions (per 5.5.5).
  13. Let's see how these estimate hold to the final overalls tomorrow.
  14. I didn't say I blame any shooters. I just find it ironic for Max to still shoot any USPSA matches or even needing to defend his title. That is if he truly believes there is something wrong with USPSA as a sport.
  15. Did anyone predicted JJ dropping out from the match? Anyone know what happen there? On a side note. It is interesting to see the person promoting and pushing an alternative competition league/sport is still shooting the USPSA nationals... Why do that if USPSA is that bas as a sport? Or if it is not bad - why do we need another sport?
  16. With lo-res cameras you may get away with about $50 per camera. That is with battery and wifi link... Though that adds up quickly - 1 camera per target x 16 targets - $800.
  17. As not all stages are the same, regardless of the round count (which gives you short/medium/long categories). I think you need to add 2nd dimension for HF ranges, something along the lines of 0..4, 4..8 8..12, 13. That will give 12 buckets between round count and HF ranges. The HF buckets may not be needed for low-round count stages, especially ones that don't require movement. But longer stages tend to differentiate competitors more significantly, at least from what is observable in the results for large matches. I am not the one who is making calls about data access. You should send an email to support@practiscore.com and outline your proposal and scope of work. Though having your code under GPL might be a problem, unless you're willing to change license for PS use.
  18. Using points or just HF won't be representative... The idea is to compare similar stages, so precision/normal/hoser would be along the lines (though I think it may need to be more granular).
  19. Have you tried to add stage specifics when running stage-based ELO? E.g. something based on stage points/HF and maybe even take harder lean on classifier stages when comparing shooters.
  20. Folks, first of all, the "overall results", AKA "combined" aren't the official results and are not covered by USPSA rule book. It is already been pointed out, that the 9.3 rule only cover match results ties and it also states that the the tie breaker stage selected by MD is only used for the final ranking and "original match points will remain unchanged". In other words, PractiScore doesn't do anything about it there. As for the order in the tied stage and match results. The 9.2.2.1/9.2.3.1/9.2.4.1 and 9.2.5 don't mandate anything beyond HF. So, to not give any random shuffling (including the DNF and DQed ones) the PractiScore does use "stable" order - HF, then stage time, then the last and first name. It is been like that for over 10 years now. The last part is why @barrysuperhawk is seeing what he is seeing having the same HF and time in his combined match results. His last name comes 2nd.
  21. It's the last name of a physics pfogessor who created it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
  22. The math just need to take into account each stage specifics. There is enough data in the results to tell if stage required accuracy or hosing. Basically each stage can be identified as 2-dimensional coordinates: target points (5 - 160) and the best time (say 0.5 sec to 30..40sec). Though the time need to take into account what level competitors shot it. Then you can compare stages with similar parameters. For simplicity the 2-dimensional space probably can be just broken down to 4 areas (e.g. fast and low points stage, fast and high points, slow and low points, slow and high points) or 9, 12 areas. That would reflect the non-linear dependency of HF on points and time.
  23. By the way, which site is that? Could you share a link with that claim?
  24. For that video to be a good approximation, the frame rate of your camera has to be at least 2x of the timer's screen refresh ratio. They have special math about that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem#Application_to_multivariable_signals_and_images You need to capture video with a high fps camera to get a some approximation. On the other hand, your own video does show the actual brightness of the screen. These yellow dots on screenshot taken from your video are good representation how bare eye see the screen. It matches with my own observations and like I said, I personally don't find that brightness unacceptable. From the personal range experience. The fun part about using belt clip is that I always use my hand to tilt the timer up when I need to look at the screen. And the hand naturally is working as a shield to screen the sun light... Admittedly, during my own practice, I rarely need to look at the screen, as I get time spoken to me by the connected PractiScore Log app running on my phone.
  25. What exactly was personal in my responses? Yours on the other hand... I don't see what I need to acknowledge. I haven't sold you that timer and I don't even make timers. As a user of that same timer I don't see a show stopper issues, not at the scale you describing it. For the most part, your video shows your camera's sweep line inference over timer's screen sweep line. That is why the video shows it a blinking. Cool demo, kind of similar to moiré pattern. The human eye doesn't work that way, so looking at the timer not through another digital camera I see pretty much static image.
×
×
  • Create New...